Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Reacts to Dismal Job Numbers

President-elect Barack Obama issued a statement this morning on the news that the labor market in November had experienced "the worst monthly showing in 34 years," while unemployment rose to a 15-year high:

The 533,000 jobs lost last month, the worst job loss in 34 years, is more than a dramatic reflection of the growing economic crisis we face. Each of those lost jobs represents a personal crisis for a family somewhere in America. Our economy has already lost nearly 2 million jobs during this recession, which is why we need an Economic Recovery Plan that will save or create at least 2.5 million more jobs over two years while we act decisively to maintain the flows of credit on which so many American families and American businesses depend.

There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better. But now is the time to respond with urgent resolve to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. At the same time, this painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come.

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 5, 2008; 9:58 AM ET
Categories:  Primary Source  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Warm and Fuzzy As Bushies Exit and Obamans Enter
Next: Ann Romney Diagnosed with Early-Stage Cancer


"Obama has NO clue WHO to pick, or WHAT to do, and so he is going to vacillate and equivicate just like the Democrat Congress has done since 2006.


Posted by: joelevin | December 5, 2008 2:41 PM |"
Funny you should that since Obama has been getting rave reviews for his cabinet picks by both parties and the populace. Oh, and as far as the "Democratic Congress" goes, Bush never used the veto until they came to power 1 1/2 years ago, since then he's used it 6 times. Also, the Republican minority has used the filibuster a RECORD amount of times since the Dems gained control. That mr. joelevin is the DEFINITION of obstructionism.

In these very difficult times out citizens NEED both parties to work together to solve our problems, not politicians like Boehner who want nothing more than the Dems to fail at any cost.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 5, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

This economy requires some experience and strength. Obama has NO clue WHO to pick, or WHAT to do, and so he is going to vacillate and equivicate just like the Democrat Congress has done since 2006.


Posted by: joelevin | December 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Clearly Longquest was an art major and missed the mandatory business classes, if he ever attended a real college.

Not a historian, nor an economist, nor a political scientist, nor a sociologiest.

Guess that leaves comedian and cartoonist.

Leadership is a domain of leaders. Markets are movement of products. Presidents are neither, in the context of the coming administration.

How about moving out some of the illegal aliens that are occupying some of those US job slots? Maybe putting unemployed kids back into vocational schools. Maybe some relocation and retraining programs for the labor force in the former manufacturing regions of the rust belt. Recognize that the jobs are not going to "return" and that without NEW SKILLS, there will BE NO NEW jobs other than government pork barrel creations and social foolishness experimentation. What does not work is to bail out businesses and banks with taxpayer money, thinking that SAVING jobs in malfunctioning institutions is ANY SOLUTION. If folks do not have LEGITIMATE jobs with futures, they are just going to be in and out of welfare or jails. Leadership is telling the Congress to go to Hell and to stop propping up losing corporations that happen to lobby and fund reelections of the politicians.

This economy requires some experience and strength. Obama has NO clue WHO to pick, or WHAT to do, and so he is going to vacillate and equivicate just like the Democrat Congress has done since 2006.

Posted by: joelevin | December 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

To Lonquest at 1:09 p.m.

You sound like a very intelligent person.

And very naive, if you think the last eight years have seen "laissez faire" economic policy.

Oh, but I wish it were true.

Have a nice day, "Lonquest"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 5, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

This kind of story actually makes me feel that the weight on Obama's shoulders has been underestimated.

I'm afraid the national press is so preoccupied with their jubilation that the candidate they campaigned for won, that they're assuming he'll wave his hand and all the problems will go away on Jan 21st.

This is an especially big problem because the economic crunch is going to get MUCH worse, for a LONG time.

The electorate knows almost nothing about our free enterprise system, the Constitution, or any actual details of how we got into or will get out of this mess. But every day, the Obama press corps feeds them hopehopechangechange messages on the Messiah.

None of this is doing President-elect Obama, or the nation, any good. When people have heavenly expectations and hellish conditions, bad things happen.

I pray for Obama. He's brilliant. But he's flesh and blood like the rest of us and could never match the magical expectations of millions of infant-like Americans.

Posted by: WisdomVision | December 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I love the posts that blame the consequences of laissez-faire economic policies on secret government intervention. It's like walking down the street and finding myself surrounded by a Salvador Dali painting. You don't need conspiracy theories to explain this disaster.

"Supply-side" economics is simply a hoax. There's no difference between so-called "Reaganomics" and the anti-interventionist policies with which Herbert Hoover ushered in the Great Depression. It's worked the same way for Reagan and the Bushes as it did for Hoover, because it's exactly the same philosophy, and the policies based on it are essentially the same.

This all begins, frankly, with bad scholarship. Ideologues tend to absorb just enough of an idea to get excited about, and then they run about the countryside pretending to have invented it, without ever really understand it. In this case, the poorly-understood ideas come mostly from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," and pertain to the market system.

Markets are mechanisms. They help trade occur, and give the existence of money most of its meaning. They tend to make resources flow as if they were liquid, and to lead to efficient allocation of resources. Markets are also repositories of wealth.

There are also many things markets are not. Markets are not sources of leadership or vision; they do not look to the future, except by assuming the future looks just like the past. They are not repositories of wisdom, and do not manage themselves. They do not enforce honesty, else why would we look not to the market, but to government to limits fraud?

The laissez-faire philosophy is based on the assumption that markets are many things they are not. Laissez-faire places faith in markets to do things markets simply are not equipped or intended to do, to guide the future, to keep their players honest, to regulate themselves. This is faith-based economics: belief without understanding, naive, unrealistic, and devoid of leadership or vision.

Markets serve useful purposes. They're great at efficiency, albeit only at maintaining the status quo. They're pretty equitable, as long as cheaters get caught. They have their place, but that place is not to be the sole guiding force of an economy.

That's why laissez-faire doesn't work: laissez-faire amounts to an abuse of the very concept of a market, a demand that the market accomplish things it was never designed to accomplish. That's why I claim that belief in laissez-faire philosophy is an example of bad scholarship.

Posted by: lonquest | December 5, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The republican neocon "free-market" experiment receives an "F". No more big business pawns in government, please.

Also Rush Lamebrain a can congratulate himself on being the pied piper who ruined countless lives by leading people astray. You couldn't pay me enough to switch places with that angry clown to answer for what he has done.

Posted by: rooster54 | December 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse


Extrajudicial Targeting: A Root Cause of Global Financial Crisis?


Posted by: scrivener50 | December 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company